Many different factors can influence how a passenger/driver perceives automated controls of a vehicle such as may be provided with collision avoidance systems, advanced cruise control, advanced driver assist systems (ADAS), and other autonomous or semi-autonomous forms of controlling a vehicle. For example, in general, when a vehicle generates autonomous controls, the autonomous controls are objectively computed according to an ideal path as viewed by the computational system. That is, the vehicle may produce autonomous controls that, for example, maintain the vehicle within a center portion of a lane. However, this style of operation can have negative perceptions by a driver because of too closely passing vehicles in adjacent lanes, erratic/unexpected maneuvers to sustain a particular path, and so on.
Moreover, autonomous controls generated by the vehicle can disrupt a sense of continuity in the driver when the controls intervene and/or are provided in an abrupt or jerky manner. Such inconsistencies can be due to, for example, complex control systems that fail to account for driver inputs. For example, in systems with shared control, two independent control streams are provided (e.g., manual and autonomous) which may oppose each other. However, because the two inputs are in opposition, the vehicle implements controls that can become quite complex to permit the separate controls to individually control the vehicle. Accordingly, resulting control of the vehicle can become erratic and lack robustness to provide a smooth and seamless ride. Thus, difficulties arise when attempting to implement autonomous and semi-autonomous controls within a vehicle that can undermine the trust of a driver in the autonomous/semi-autonomous controls.